Nominal Index M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 134Manje Gowda And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 135Rathnamma & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 136Bujji @ Babu G And State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 137Nanjappa And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 138Khadar Basha & others...
Nominal Index
M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
Manje Gowda And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
Rathnamma & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
Bujji @ Babu G And State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Nanjappa And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
Khadar Basha & others And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
M P Renukacharya And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
Sudarshan Ramesh And Union of India & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
T N Shivaraju & others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
Aisha Mallik & Others And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
Ramamurthy N And Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
Isthiyak Ahmed And Election Commission of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
K. Shankarlal v. Post Master, India Post & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
Roopa D And Rohini Sindhuri &ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
Coolulu Sports Private Limited And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
Kanchan Srinivasan And Bangalore Cyber Crime Police Station & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
THE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT AND MONITORING COMMITTEE And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
Mohammed Shariff And National Investigating Agency. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
H D Naveen And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Thirakavva & ANR Ratnavva & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
Sudarshan V Biradar And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
M/s TTK Healthcare Ltd And P V Ravi. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Kousalya And Government of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
XIAOMI Technology India Private Limited. v. Union of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
Mohammad Bilal & others And Police Sub-Inspector Law and Order & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
Rudresha And The Management of M/s TVS Motor Company. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
Hanumanthrao And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
H Siddaraju & ANR Union of India & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
M/s National Insurance Company Ltd And Mrs Asha & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
B L Adishesh & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India
Case No: Writ Petition No. 13185 Of 2020 (T-Res)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has an amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust, and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.
The Bench of Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar has observed that Rule 89(4)(C) of the CGST Rules is ultra vires Section 54 of the CGST Act and Section 16 of the IGST Act. The very intention of the zero-rating is to make the entire supply chain of "exports" tax-free, i.e., to fully 'Zero-rate’ the exports by exempting them from both input tax and output tax. Section 16(3) of the IGST Act allows a refund of input taxes paid in the course of making a Zero-rated Supply, i.e., supplies that cover exports as well as supplies to SEZs. The rule in whittling down such refund is ultra vires in view of the well-settled principle of law that rules cannot override the parent legislation.
Case Title: Manje Gowda And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 50646 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Principal Secretary to the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj to explore the possibility of making available hybrid hearings through video conferencing, at all quasi judicial authorities.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “In this age when courts have also installed hybrid hearings through video conferencing, the Prl. Secretary to explore the possibility of making available similar facilities at all quasi judicial authorities, so as to enable easy access to justice to the citizens of the country.”
Case Title: Rathnamma & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7270 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
The Karnataka High Court has directed the prison authorities to consider the representation of a woman and release a murder convict on parole leave, for him to marry her or else she would be given in marriage to someone else.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Neetha G and Rathnamma and directed the authorities to release the convict Anand. It said “The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and release the detenue/Anand (convict Prisoner No.11699) on parole from the forenoon of 05.04.2023, till the evening of 20.04.2023.”
Case Title: Bujji @ Babu G And State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12080 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
The Karnataka High Court has refused bail to an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, who claimed that the victim minor girl was a consenting party and that there was absence of element of force.
Justice V Srishananda said the "consent, if any, of the victim girl for the penetrative sexual assault said to have taken place between the petitioner and the victim girl is immaterial while considering the scope of Section 3 of POCSO Act which is punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.”
Case Title: Nanjappa And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.573/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court has said that a gift deed executed by a senior citizen can be declared as null and void under the Senior Citizens Act only if a stipulation is contained therein that the transferee shall maintain him or her in return.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice K S Hemalekha, while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by Nanjappa, said, “On careful perusal of the document executed by the appellant in favour of the 3rd respondent, who happens to be the brother of the appellant, it does not contain any stipulation that the 3rd respondent is under the obligation to maintain the present appellant. In the absence of any condition stipulated in the documents, the provisions of Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act are not attracted.”
Case Title: Khadar Basha & others And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104219 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated last year against workers of now-banned Campus Front of India (CFI) for holding a meeting and gathering people at Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Bhavan, Bagalokot, when the authorities had prohibited such meetings on account of third wave of COVID-19.
Justice J M Khazi sitting at Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by Khadar Basha and others who were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 270, 448 R/W Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 5 of Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance 2020.
Case Title: M P Renukacharya And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2098 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an alleged case of disproportionate assets against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Leader M P Renukacharya.
Justice K Natarajan, while dismissing the petition filed by the legislator, said the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. On the private complaint filed by one Gurupadaiah, the police earlier registered FIR on 30.11.2015, wherein it was alleged Renukacharya had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income while he was a Member of Legislature Assembly during 2004 to 2008, again from 2008 to 2013 and also from 25.12.2009 to 23.12.2013 when he was Cabinet Minister of Government of Karnataka.
Case Title: Sudarshan Ramesh And Union of India & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.30 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to consider the representations made by Sudarshan Ramesh, brother of bitcoin scam accused Sirkrishna, seeking to recall the Look Out Circular issued against him, thereby not allowing him to leave India.
The representation is to be considered after completing the investigation in the money laundering case against Sudarshan, for his alleged involvement, within 6 weeks. However, it reminded petitioner that an accused or any other person who is connected with the proceeds of crime, but may not be accused in the predicate offence, has a bounden duty to co-operate with the investigation.
Case Title: T N Shivaraju & others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6419 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
The Karnataka High Court has said that if resignations tendered by Directors of a cooperative society are withdrawn within 15 days, then there is no resignation which can be said to have been taken place and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, in such circumstances cannot appoint a Special Officer for the society.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by T N Shivaraju and others, who are Directors of the Town Cooperative Society Ltd, and quashed the order dated 6.3.2023, passed by Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointing a special officer to the society under Section 31 (1) of the Act.
Case Title: Aisha Mallik & Others And Union of India & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.14333 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
The Karnataka High Court has refused to issue a direction to the Union of India to consider the representation of two minor Pakistani Nationals, for issuance of Indian passport and grant of Indian citizenship to them
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Aisha and Ahmed Mailk and said, “If the law elsewhere i.e., Pakistan does not permit renunciation of citizenship by minors up to a certain age, the law of this nation would not permit grant of citizenship to such persons.”
Case Title: Ramamurthy N And Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 22305 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
The Karnataka High Court has advised the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to be careful with complaints made by a party to a civil proceedings against its opponent, and initiate action only in accordance with law.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by one Ramamurthy N and quashed the order passed by the corporation issued under Section 321 (3) of the Municipal Corporation act against him on the complaint made by his brother.
Case Title: Isthiyak Ahmed And Election Commission of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6865 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that Returning Officer or the election officials would not get any jurisdiction to search or seize any material before announcement of elections.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “The Returning Officer or the election officials would not get any jurisdiction to search or seize any material before the announcement of elections. Merely because they are appointed as Officers for conduct of elections, they cannot use the said power before the declaration of elections. After the declaration of elections, the entire domain would be open, but not till then.”
Case Title: K. Shankarlal v. Post Master, India Post & Ors.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2042 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
The Karnataka High Court recently came to the rescue of a 48 years old Bengaluru resident who was denied interest on PPF deposits, stating that his HUF PPF account was opened irregularly after the scheme was amended.
Stating that it was for the authorities to detect such irregular accounts and inform the investors immediately, a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna cautioned the Postmaster and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices that failure to do so will lead to the Officers who manage such accounts being held responsible for dereliction of duty.
Caset Title: Roopa D And Rohini Sindhuri &ANR
Case No: WP 5814/2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday vacated the temporary injuction order passed by a Civil court in Bengaluru, restraining IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil from publishing any defamatory content against IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri.
A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar allowed the petition filed by Moudgil questioning the order dated March 7, by which the trial court had extended the life of injunction order.
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4290 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a woman challenging an order of the family court granting divorce on the grounds of desertion as the wife failed to counter the averments made by the husband in the petition.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil said “It is trite law that if a witness is not subjected to cross-examination by the other side, his testimony is deemed to have been accepted.”
Case Title: Coolulu Sports Private Limited And Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15087 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to consider afresh whether the word “lulu” in the title of Coolulu Sports Private Limited company is identical to Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited a well known trademark.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Coolulu Sports Private Limited and set aside the order passed by Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, date 30-03-2022, restraining the company from using the word “lulu” from the title of its name. The court has directed the Regional Director to pass orders afresh within three months and till then it has directed the parties to maintain status quo.
Case Title: Kanchan Srinivasan And Bangalore Cyber Crime Police Station & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6532 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court has accepted the submission made by an advocate that the amount received by her from a client who is accused in a cheating case is towards professional fee and has directed the police to instruct the bank to defreeze his account.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna disposed of the petition filed by Kanchan Srinivasan and said “In the light of the explanation so submitted and there being no material, I deem it appropriate to direct the Investigating Officer to direct the concerned Bank to defreeze the account that has been debit frozen within the next one week.”
Case Title: THE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT AND MONITORING COMMITTEE And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21595 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to forthwith identify/approve identified land for construction of a school building in Maddur Taluk, which was demolished after land on which it stood was acquired for widening and upgrading Bangalore – Mysore Highway.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was irked by the three year delay at the hand of the state government officials in constructing the new school building and on perusal of the photographs highlighting the conditions in the makeshift schools which the children are attending. It said “This Court would not permit the State to reduce the fundamental right of children under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, to a “mere rope of sand”".
Case Title: MOHAMMED SHARIFF And NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.5547 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused in the Bengaluru riots case of 2020, questioning the cognizance taken by Special NIA court of offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by accused Mohammed Sharif and said, “The ingredients of Section 15 (Terrorist Act) of the Act, in the considered view of this Court, are prima facie met.”
Case Title: H D Naveen And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.912/2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld a husband's conviction under Section 498-A (Cruelty) IPC for harassing his wife, stating that he perhaps developed inferiority complex.
A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D.Huddar while dismissing the revision petition filed by H D Naveen observed, “Accused No.1 is unemployed. Perhaps he must be having an inferiority complex as his wife complainant is a BA., B.Ed. graduate, working as a teacher. That must have made the accused No.1 and his family members to harass the complainant by making unlawful demands and harassed her physically and mentally.”
Case Title: Thirakavva & ANR Ratnavva & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1659 OF 2007 (PAR-) C/W RFA CROSS OBJ NO.101 OF 2008
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court has suggested amending provisions of the law relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court and the District Court to hear the first appeals filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is governed under Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act of 1961 and Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, to ensure expeditious disposal of appeals.
The bench gave the suggestion while deciding on an appeal filed by one Thirakavva who had to wait for 16 years for the court to take up for final hearing the appeal filed by her. It observed “Ideally, the final verdict in an appeal should not take more than 2 years after admission. An appeal from the stage of filing till the disposal does not involve elaborate time consuming procedures like a suit.”
Case Title: Sudarshan V Biradar And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15800 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
The Karnataka High Court has declared the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Rules, 2022 by which it amended Rule 9 of the Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, and conferred powers on Revenue officials to decide on application for delayed registration of births and death, as ultra vires, the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
The State Government by the amendment had substituted the words in sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 which hitherto read “a Magistrate of First Class or a Presidency Magistrate” with the words “an Assistant Commissioner (Sub-Divisional Magistrate)”. The State Government had taken away the power of the Magistrate of the First Class and placed it at the mercy of the Assistant Commissioner.
Case Title: M/s TTK Healthcare Ltd And P V Ravi
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29197 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
The Karnataka High Court has said that Labour Court before coming to a conclusion that domestic enquiry conducted by the employer against terminated employee is not fair and proper, it has to grant opportunity to the employer to establish the Articles of Charge, levelled by it against the employee.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by M/s TTK Healthcare Ltd and set aside the award dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Prl. Labour Court, Bangalore. It remanded the matter back to the Labour court for fresh disposal by providing an opportunity to the employer to lead evidence to establish the charges against the workman.
Case Title: Kousalya And Government of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.RP.NO.764/2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to a woman for cheating villagers and collecting money from them on the pretext of distributing gas cylinders to them.
A Single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar partly allowed the appeal filed by Kousalya and modified the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on the accused to six months.
However, the court rejected the prayer of the convict that since she is a lady, some leniency may be shown by remitting the sentence and praying to enlarge her under the provisions of the Probation of Offender Act, (PO) 1958.
Case Title: XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WP 19973/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
The Karnataka High Court on Friday rejected the petition filed by Xiaomi India challenging an order passed by the Competent Authority appointed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999 (FEMA), confirming the order issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seizing Rs.5,551.27 crores of the company.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna though upheld the maintainability of the petition, it dismissed the same on merits. The company had approached the court challenging the constitutional validity of section 37A of FEMA Act contending it to be violative of Article 14, 20 read with Article 300A and 301 of the Constitution of India. The provision empowers Centre's authorized officer to seize an entity's assets in India on suspicion of violation of FEMA.
UAPA Case: Karnataka High Court Upholds Rejection Of Alleged PFI Members' Default Bail
Case Title: Mohammad Bilal & others And Police Sub-Inspector Law and Order & others.
Case No: W.P.H.C. NO.10 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by five alleged members of the banned organisation Popular Front of India, (PFI), and upheld the order of Special court designated to try offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which rejected their application for grant of default bail.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil found no merits in the habeas corpus petition filed by Mohammad Bilal and Others. The Central Government had in September 2022 banned the organisation. The petitioners were arrested on October 12, 2022 for the offences punishable under sections 121, 121A, 121B, 153A 5 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 13 and 18(1)(B) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, on the allegation that they were engaged in unlawful activities.
Case Title: Rudresha And The Management of M/s TVS Motor Company.
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.52668 OF 2014 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.37496 OF 2014.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
The Karnataka High Court has said that in cases where employer expresses loss of confidence in the workman, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, would have to consider the said contention in light of the surrounding facts and circumstances and ascertain if such a suspicion is based on objective set of facts or on the basis of any extraneous factor.
A single judge bench of Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed M/s TVS motor company (the employer) seeking to set aside Labour court's order by which it set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed by the company and directed reinstatement of the workman. It also allowed the petition filed by workman Rudresh and set aside punishment of withholding two increments imposed by the Labour court.
Karnataka High Court Sentences 80-Yr-Old To One Day In 36 Yrs Old Misappropriation Case
Case Title: Hanumanthrao And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.R.P. No. 856 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
The Karnataka High Court recently modified the sentence of one year imprisonment imposed on a 80-year-old, former government servant who was convicted for misappropriating public funds and commuted it to one day–till the rising of the court.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by Hanumanthrao in part and said “The judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409 & 477A of IPC is upheld. The order of sentence passed by the courts below against the petitioner for the said offences is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs.10,000.”
Case Title: H Siddaraju & ANR Union of India & others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 5861 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
The Karnataka High Court has evolved a triple test theory to permit a couple to undertake the procedure of surrogacy, which otherwise was not permitted to them as the husband being 57-year-old has crossed the age eligibility criteria, under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed in part the petition filed by H Siddaraju and his wife and directed the State Surrogacy Board or prescribed authority to consider their application for grant of an eligibility certificate as is necessary in law for the petitioners to become parents by way of surrogacy, on the triple tests as indicated – genetic; physical and economical.
Case Title: M/s National Insurance Company Ltd And Mrs Asha & others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2603 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court has said that the onus is on the claimants to prove that there was rash and negligent driving only by the alleged offending vehicle driver causing the accident. However, in case if the respondent/Insurer are able to show that the road traffic accident has not occurred in the manner as agitated by the claimants, then, the Tribunal should not hesitate in fixing the contributory negligence, on the part of the deceased.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr H B Prabhakara Sastry partly allowed the appeal filed by M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd and modified the award passed by the Tribunal dated 27-01-2017, and reduced compensation amount awarded from Rs 22,03,000 to Rs 21,00,000, to the claimants.
Case Title: B L Adishesh & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16906 OF 2022 (CS-EL/M) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 18949 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
The Karnataka High Court has held that erstwhile office members of a private club cannot process an election on the ground that the Administrator so appointed by the Government, has not taken charge.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by B L Adishesh and others who are members of the Vontikoppal Club, in Mysore. It quashed the final list circulated by the erstwhile office bearers and restrained the erstwhile office bearers from conducting election to the executive committee.